Franklin Pierce
Franklin Pierce was a Templar, and the Templars were accused of being a war criminal for attacking the Barbary nations of the Middle East. The Templars also founded several "machinations" or secret societies of their own, including one of which was founded in 1334. The Temple of the Assassins is not in Egypt as it was founded in France. The Assassins in Egypt were not called Assassins only for their weapons. They had a philosophy of creating a new civilization (i.e., in the Middle East) and having secret societies that would control the government of that country. Thus, they were called a "machinations." The Freemason's of today are called "Anglo-American" Freemasons, and are the "Anglo-Saxon" version of the Templar, Templarian, Templars of France, Templar (British) Knights, Templar Knights, and so on. When the Freemasons were created in 1776, they did not have a set code of ethics, or a code of morality that was set in stone. Most of the history of human immigration comes to us from the ancient world, and is almost entirely shaped by human culture and interactions, and cultural traits such as our willingness to live in large groups. For example, the number of individuals living in a population has very little bearing on how many people it will support; it has almost as much bearing on how large the population must support as has the number of individuals in the population. This is why immigration should be done with a clear understanding that cultural and social adaptations, such as the social organization of the culture, are critical factors in determining the number of people one should support. But there is no requirement that immigration to a new country be completely voluntary. As I have indicated, there are many countries where people are forced to travel to get to the United States and are, essentially without choice or choice, unable to move to a different destination without going to prison, risking their lives. Yet, these examples don't come out of nowhere. When America's Founding Fathers debated the meaning of liberty and the meaning of the rule of law, they took as a given that government can protect those rights and that government can act within the law. So it would not be surprising to find that, in the years since, the Constitution has sometimes been interpreted to deny government the power to protect individuals' rights (or indeed their right at all). It seems likely that government would have protected Americans' rights to arms if it had the power to do so. In the past quarter century, we have seen several prominent cases which suggest Congress might have been motivated by fears of terrorism, to take away the rights of American citizens by restricting Americans' weapons rights. In particular it was argued in a 2005 case that the Second Amendment gave the individual the right not to be compelled to give up his right to own guns. Even so, the issue is one of "first principles", not "first amendment rights". The first principle is that government should not regulate anything. Second amendment rights are, in common parlance, the "unlawful taking away of rights" - a restriction which is itself a form of government regulation. Category:People Category:Politicized Category:Neural networkian